Engines, Methods, and Systems for Normalizing Heterogeneous Parameters for Scoring Proposals

1. A comparison engine for generating a ranked list of alternatives, the comparison engine comprising: a tradeoff module, executing on a computer, the tradeoff module having at least two tradeoff criteria, the at least two tradeoff criteria having a range of possible values, the tradeoff module being capable of receiving assigned values for the at least two tradeoff criteria, a criteria behavior module, the criteria behavior module being capable of analyzing predetermined attributes for a set of alternatives, where the attributes include values of the tradeoff criteria, the criteria behavior module being further capable of generating a set of scores reflecting desirability of the attributes using at least two logic diagrams, and a scoring and ranking module, the scoring and ranking module being capable of receiving the assigned values from the tradeoff module and the set of scores from the criteria behavior module and generating a ranked list of alternatives.

2. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the assigned values are provided by a user or a machine.

3. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the at least two logic diagrams are represented by at least one selected from the group consisting of affinity curves, workflows, decision trees, statistical models, and programming modules.

4. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the criteria behavior module transforms a heterogeneous matrix of alternatives and attributes into a homogenous matrix containing scores, wherein the scores are representative of the alternatives and attributes.

5. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the ranked list of alternatives is generated by taking a weighted sum of the assigned values from the tradeoff module and the set of scores from the criteria behavior module.

6. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the ranked list of alternatives is a set of requested proposals or a set of consumer merchandise.

7. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , further comprising: a slider bar for setting at least one of the at least two tradeoff values, the slider bar capable of being set by a user or a machine.

8. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the at least two logic diagrams represent expert knowledge corresponding to particular criteria.

9. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , further comprising: a training module, the training module capable of being trained by the user to create the at least two logic diagrams.

10. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the comparison engine is used to facilitate a reverse auction.

11. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the comparison engine is used to facilitate a solicitation process in a reverse auction.

12. The comparison engine as recited in claim 10 , wherein the tradeoffs correspond to an ideal profile for required goods and services and the ranked list of alternatives correspond to bids.

13. The comparison engine as recited in claim 10 , further comprising an authentication module for authenticating a user's identity.

14. The comparison engine as recited in claim 13 , wherein the authentication module is used to authenticate a buyer and at least one seller in the reverse auction.

15. The comparison engine as recited in claim 1 , wherein the assessment and scoring of a list of proposals is performed automatically by the engine, at the click of a button, without the need for a human to read, assess, and score the proposals.

16. A method for generating a ranked list of alternatives, the method comprising a computer executing the steps of: generating a homogeneous matrix of scores based on a heterogeneous matrix of attributes and alternatives, receiving two or more tradeoff values, generating a ranked list of alternatives based on the homogeneous matrix of scores and the tradeoff values, and using a training program to create a logic graph.

17. A method as recited in claim 16 , wherein the homogeneous matrix of scores is generated using at least one logic diagram.

18. A method as recited in claim 17 , wherein the at least one logic diagram is at least one selected from the group consisting of affinity curves, workflows, decision trees, statistical model, programming modules.

19. A method as recited in claim 16 , wherein the ranked list of alternatives is generated by calculating the weighted sum of at least one score in the homogeneous matrix of scores and the tradeoff value.

20. A method as recited in claim 16 , wherein the tradeoff value corresponds to an ideal profile for required goods and the ranked list of alternatives corresponds to bids.

21. A method as recited in claim 20 , further comprising: receiving bid information from at least two bidders, generating a heterogeneous matrix of alternatives and attributes based on the bid information, scoring the bids according to the homogenous matrix of scores, wherein the ranked list of alternatives comprises the bid information.

22. A method as recited in claim 16 , wherein a web interface is used to receive the tradeoff value and display the ranked list of alternatives.

23. A system for generating a ranked list of alternatives, the system comprising: means for generating a homogeneous matrix of scores based on a heterogeneous matrix of attributes and alternatives, means for receiving two or more tradeoff values, means for generating a ranked list of alternatives based on the homogeneous matrix of scores and the tradeoff value, and means for creating a logic graph using a training program.

24. A system as recited in claim 23 , further comprising: means for generating a logic diagram, the logic diagram being used to generate the homogeneous matrix of scores.